Abhishek Kumar Soni vs State of M.P.

S.K. Palo, J.—Heard on IA No. 4100/2014, an application u/s 301(2) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of complainant seeking permission to assist the prosecution at the time of hearing.

Considered.

Complainant is permitted to assist the prosecution.''

This is first application for bail filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

Applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime 162/2014 u/s 498A, 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Datia.

As per prosecution story, on 28.4.2014 the complainant Priti Soni, wife of Abhishek Soni lodged an FIR that on 19.11.11 her marriage was solemnized with Abhishek Soni observing Hindu rites. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law Premnarayan and Yogesh @ Ramji, Sister-in-law Rachna & Ruchi have received Rs. 15,00,000/- from her father at the time of her marriage. They were residing at Rajghat Colony, Datia. When she stayed there with them she was treated badly by her in-laws. They demanded dowry for construction of first floor and asked her to bring money from her parents. After construction of the first floor, they again demanded money to purchase a house at Pune. She was ill-treated and harassed by the accused persons. It is also alleged that she was sent to kitchen for making tea and the gas knob kept open. When she entered into the kitchen the accused persons tried to shut the door from outside. Somehow she managed to come out from the kitchen. Despite efforts made for compromise between the parties by the other persons they sold out the house in Oct. 2013 and she was sent to her parental house. The accused persons left for Pune. They kept her ornaments with them. They shifted to Pune without informing the complainant. The landlord of the house informed about the shifting, to the complainant. Whereabouts of the father-in-law and mother-in-law is not known.

On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that a petition for divorce was filed by husband Abhishek Soni, feeling aggrieved by this, the complainant has lodged this report. It is also submitted that there has been no such incident but the applicants are falsely implicated.

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P. (Civil) 141 of 2005 decided on 19.7.2005 and submitted that the provisions of Section 498A is misused.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that there has been an attempt to kill the complainant. Earlier bail applications filed on behalf of accused Prem Narayan Soni (M.Cr.C. No. 4222/2014) and Yogesh Soni and Ruchi Soni (M.Cr.C. No. 5373/2014 have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.6.2014. May be there are instances of misuse of the provision of Sec. 498A of IPC. But in the present case the citation of Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) is not applicable.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State has also opposed the bail application.

Keeping in view that the investigation is yet to be completed and earlier anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by this Court and looking to the nature of the offence and the prevailing circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail the applicants.

Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.